Preacherman
Member
Having said that, and donned my flame-proof underwear in anticipation of the howls of outraged protest from semi-auto fans, let me explain... 
I've been training shooters for many years, first in South Africa, and then over here in the USA. I'm not by any means a Clint Smith or Louis Awerbuck, as I teach only the basics, and in recent years I've concentrated on working with disabled and/or handicapped individuals, who need special techniques and methods due to their physical limitations. Nevertheless, I've come to some conclusions based on this experience, and I'd like to invite comment.
1. Reliability. Most shooters, in my experience, do NOT maintain their defensive firearms adequately. They leave them uncleaned and/or un-lubricated for long periods;: carry them extensively and never clean out the dust, pocket lint, etc. that accumulates in nooks and crannies of the gun; and often don't even dry them off properly if they get wet due to perspiration, rain, condensation, etc. I'm sure that virtually all of us on THR know better than to make these mistakes, but we're not exactly "most shooters", are we? - if we were, we wouldn't be active participants here. For those who don't get good training in weapons maintenance, a revolver is simpler and less likely to hang up at a critical moment due to lack of lubrication.
2. Contact engagements. I've participated in several training courses, and been in (and read details of) many actual engagements, where hand-to-hand contact (and combat) was involved. Under such circumstances, very often an autopistol will be pushed out of battery when pressed against an opponent, and will fail to fire as a result. A revolver doesn't suffer from this disadvantage. Sure, if one is trained, one knows not to push a pistol hard into one's opponent, to avoid this problem: but how many are this well trained?
3. Limp-wristing. For one-handed use, particularly weak-handed use, I've seen very many shooters "limp-wrist" the pistol, causing a failure to eject and/or feed. I've never seen this problem with a revolver. For disabled and/or handicapped shooters, many of whom have limited arm and/or upper-body strength and mobility, this is a particularly important factor. Also, in contact engagements (e.g. if one has been knocked to the ground, and has to draw and use a weapon while struggling to hold off an opponent and/or get to one's feet again), one-handed use of the weapon is more likely than not - again, a case for the easier-to-handle revolver.
4. Ammunition sensitivity. Many authorities recommend (and I agree with them) that one should put a minimum of 200 rounds of one's chosen carry ammo. through one's carry pistol and magazines, without any malfunctions, before accepting it as reliable. Many shooters, partly for reasons of economy (good carry loads are relatively expensive) and partly out of laziness, don't do this. With a revolver, it's a moot point - they'll feed anything from full wadcutters to round-nose stuff without any problem.
5. Multiple users of a weapon. In any emergency, one has to accept that one's weapon may have to be used by someone else - a spouse, child, etc. If one's weapon is more complex (e.g. external safeties, the need for a firm hold to prevent "limp-wristing", etc.), failures are more likely. A revolver is extremely simple for a novice to operate, if need be.
6. Price. One can get a very good quality new or used revolver for plus-or-minus $300 to $400. It's a lot more difficult to get a "very good quality" used or new pistol in that price range (with some notable exceptions, such as Ruger, Springfield XD, etc.).
For all these reasons, I'm finding myself recommending to new shooters, more and more often, that if they don't plan on getting extensive (and expensive) training, and don't plan on shooting at least 200 rounds a month in practice, they should consider buying a revolver instead of a semi-auto pistol.
For myself, I have had extensive training, and I carry a pistol with great peace of mind: but I own more revolvers than pistols, and carry them as well, with equally great peace of mind.
What say you?
I've been training shooters for many years, first in South Africa, and then over here in the USA. I'm not by any means a Clint Smith or Louis Awerbuck, as I teach only the basics, and in recent years I've concentrated on working with disabled and/or handicapped individuals, who need special techniques and methods due to their physical limitations. Nevertheless, I've come to some conclusions based on this experience, and I'd like to invite comment.
1. Reliability. Most shooters, in my experience, do NOT maintain their defensive firearms adequately. They leave them uncleaned and/or un-lubricated for long periods;: carry them extensively and never clean out the dust, pocket lint, etc. that accumulates in nooks and crannies of the gun; and often don't even dry them off properly if they get wet due to perspiration, rain, condensation, etc. I'm sure that virtually all of us on THR know better than to make these mistakes, but we're not exactly "most shooters", are we? - if we were, we wouldn't be active participants here. For those who don't get good training in weapons maintenance, a revolver is simpler and less likely to hang up at a critical moment due to lack of lubrication.
2. Contact engagements. I've participated in several training courses, and been in (and read details of) many actual engagements, where hand-to-hand contact (and combat) was involved. Under such circumstances, very often an autopistol will be pushed out of battery when pressed against an opponent, and will fail to fire as a result. A revolver doesn't suffer from this disadvantage. Sure, if one is trained, one knows not to push a pistol hard into one's opponent, to avoid this problem: but how many are this well trained?
3. Limp-wristing. For one-handed use, particularly weak-handed use, I've seen very many shooters "limp-wrist" the pistol, causing a failure to eject and/or feed. I've never seen this problem with a revolver. For disabled and/or handicapped shooters, many of whom have limited arm and/or upper-body strength and mobility, this is a particularly important factor. Also, in contact engagements (e.g. if one has been knocked to the ground, and has to draw and use a weapon while struggling to hold off an opponent and/or get to one's feet again), one-handed use of the weapon is more likely than not - again, a case for the easier-to-handle revolver.
4. Ammunition sensitivity. Many authorities recommend (and I agree with them) that one should put a minimum of 200 rounds of one's chosen carry ammo. through one's carry pistol and magazines, without any malfunctions, before accepting it as reliable. Many shooters, partly for reasons of economy (good carry loads are relatively expensive) and partly out of laziness, don't do this. With a revolver, it's a moot point - they'll feed anything from full wadcutters to round-nose stuff without any problem.
5. Multiple users of a weapon. In any emergency, one has to accept that one's weapon may have to be used by someone else - a spouse, child, etc. If one's weapon is more complex (e.g. external safeties, the need for a firm hold to prevent "limp-wristing", etc.), failures are more likely. A revolver is extremely simple for a novice to operate, if need be.
6. Price. One can get a very good quality new or used revolver for plus-or-minus $300 to $400. It's a lot more difficult to get a "very good quality" used or new pistol in that price range (with some notable exceptions, such as Ruger, Springfield XD, etc.).
For all these reasons, I'm finding myself recommending to new shooters, more and more often, that if they don't plan on getting extensive (and expensive) training, and don't plan on shooting at least 200 rounds a month in practice, they should consider buying a revolver instead of a semi-auto pistol.
For myself, I have had extensive training, and I carry a pistol with great peace of mind: but I own more revolvers than pistols, and carry them as well, with equally great peace of mind.
What say you?
